IPv6 firewall support

Some people have claimed that they cannot yet sell
IPv6 Internet access because there is no IPv6 firewall
support. According to this ICANN study:
this is not quite true. At least 30% of the 42 vendors
surveyed, had IPv6 support.

According to this talk
many open-source and commercial firewalls supporting IPv6 are available.

IPCop is based on Linux

m0n0wall is based on FreeBSD

pfSense is also based on FreeBSD

FWBuilder is a management tool that builds filter setups for
several different firewalls.

Checkpoint FW1 NGX R65 on SecurePlatform supports IPv6

FortiGate supports IPv6 in FortiOS 3.0 and up.

Juniper SSG (formerly Netscreen) supports IPv6 in ScreenOS 6.0 and up.

Cisco ASA (formerly PIX) supports IPv6 in version 7.0 and up.

I suspect that the people complaining about IPv6 support are
partially complaining because they have older hardware that
the vendor does not plan to upgrade to IPv6 support until
they have all features implemented in their newer products,
and partially complaining because their vendor has not
implemented some feature which they happen to use.

Commercial firewall support may be lagging behind OS and
router support, but not by much. And if commercial vendors
are not responsive, maybe you should try pricing out an open
source solution with a consultant. I believe there is a gap
here that startup firewall companies could fill if they
understand the enterprise market.

--Michael Dillon

Support for IPv6 was actually introduced in the 5.4 line of ScreenOS.
This is a fairly notable difference, as 5.4 runs on legacy Netscreen
platforms (NS25/50, NS5GT, etc), where as ScreenOS 6.0 is only SSG/ISG.

I have enabled the dual-stack support and played with it; it works.
Have never used the IPv6 stack in production.

Once upon a time, Ross Vandegrift <ross@kallisti.us> said:

Have they actually made it useable yet? Last time I looked, if you had a
pair of PIX in failover mode, you couldn't use IPv6 - it put the same IP
on both firewalls at the same time, along with a message saying IPv6 wasn't
supported in standby mode.


Simon Lockhart wrote:


Juniper SSG (formerly Netscreen) supports IPv6 in ScreenOS 6.0 and up.


FWIW, there are typically notable differences in v6 feature parity vs v4. So for those folks that are actually using this stuff "supports v6 -- check!" isn't good enough and may result in some nasty surprises later on.

For example, Netscreens cannot presently filter IPv6 in transparent (bridged) mode, only in routed mode. The feature is AFAIK in the roadmap but over a year away.

Cool - I've got a pair of PIXen that I need to put live soon, so I'll test
the latest software on them to see if it has improved.


People who are complaining and have tried the platforms that claim to
support IPv6 generally find that feature parity with IPv4 doesn't exist,
which still makes it difficult to deploy. Vendors claiming IPv6 support
and systems actually providing an IPv6 based solution are two entirely
different beasts. If you need IPv6 then don't believe the vendor
propaganda, test the box and then prepare to complain to the vendor :slight_smile:


trolls can blather on, and of course will. but for the best work to
date on this subject, see dave piscitello's preso from arin,

Mark Prior wrote:

If you need IPv6 then don't believe the vendor propaganda, test the
box and then prepare to complain to the vendor :slight_smile:

there is a too lightly spoken problem under this, a lack of good test
suites, environments, platforms for ipv6. this serious gap extends from
routers' control and data planes, to security products, to the myriad of
applications. so the vendors can say pretty much anything, and it's
very hard to actually learn the reality until it fails in your network.

of course, if you have not been prone to testing in ipv4, this will not
be a major change for you. :slight_smile:


Have to say, using screenOS 5.4 on our juniper kit and relatively happy.

Elsewhere, if you just want a packet filter, v6 ACLs are fine, depending of course whether they are done in hardware or software and if this is appropriate for your application (i.e , ACL in software path is perfectly appropriate in a number of scenarios where you have dedicated router and low traffic environment....)